I would disagree. The Kings game is literally just another example out of the many that I've been citing since before the trade deadline. These weaknesses are not new. I don't "bash" our current roster; I express my evaluations of what our most pressing issues are, even though many would like to claim that our roster is impervious and that nothing could possibly be improved. I beg to differ; I have been since this past off-season. I've clamored for Iggy, Rudy, McGuire, Crash... literally, any answer to our perimeter defensive woes. And most of the time I'm met with a brick wall claiming that Klay Thompson is the answer. I'd beg to differ. This team has issues. The most glaring, to me, have been:

- Forgetting to include our most efficient scorers (the bigs) in the game plan.

- Playing down to our competition in games we should squash.

- Giving Steph and Klay free reign to fire away, even when they're shooting 10 or 11 percent in a given game.

Nellieball was built upon the principle that you can win more games by betting on the outside jumper than you'd lose. This goes against all traditional forms of basketball logic. The closest shots are the highest percentage ones. The bigger players get shots closest to the basket. It is my personal belief that basketball should be played from the inside-out on offense. If you have a wide open outside shot, than fine. But forcing up contested misses from the lowest percentage spots on the floor is a fast track to the bottom. It is absolutely ridiculous that Klay Thompson and Stephen Curry shot more collective attempts than Andrew Bogut and David Lee last night. RIDICULOUS. The guards were 6-of-31 (19%). Klay was 1-of-13. The bigs were 16-of-24 (67%).

It's time that Warriors fans faced reality and quit playing favorites.

David Lee is your all-star, not Stephen Curry. Yet even on a night where Lee is putting the ball in the cup at a 77% clip, he is awarded 28% less looks than Curry - who was skidding along at 28% shooting. If this offense were built to service Lee and Bogut, the main plays would be low-block punches, instead of floppy curls for shooters. If this offense were meant to involve the bigs, Lee would be the main-screen setter and Bogut would be the offensive rebounder... but they call Bogut for screens because his lack of range makes it all the more likely that the guard handling will end up taking the shot. If this offense cared about getting looks to their big men, you'd see horns up top EVERY play, because Bogut and Lee combined have a far better assist-to-turnover ratio than Curry and Thompson, but you DONT see that, because both of our guards hate heavy contact and they'd rather spot up behind a screen than cut to the bucket for a high-percentage hoop.

If this offense is INTENT on playing Nellieball (which, since Lee got the all-star nod over Curry, it has), than you need a perimeter defender to sew up all the miscues that the guards are making because they're expending all of their energy on offense. You can't be a conservative defensive team that looks to run-and-gun offensively. It just doesn't work.

Every team plays poorly when they can't score and no matter how you run the offense there are going to be days where you score poorly. If we ran the offense usually through Lee and Bogut and we had problems scoring there would be numerous posts about how we don't run the offense enough through our best offensive player and Klay (On games we don't score well). Lee is not immune to bad games. On offense he's just like other dudes, he can light it up, play to his average, or below it.

Basically I want my offensive looks to go Curry-Lee-Klay. For those three.

Curry and Klay were as awful as it can almost possibly get and they still shot so much. Disgraceful coaching and it makes MJackson look very inexperienced indeed.

I believe a mix of what 32 said offensively is what would work best. Go with Lee in the post, even Bogut if closer to the basket and play off that. Both bigs are very smart passers and smarts beat everything in most areas of life. Curry and Klay can have plays run for them about half the time, using screens like the team does so well.

Curry and Klay's gifted shooting needs to be held highly always, but at the same time, so does everyone elses abilities. You have off shooting nights, yes, and that means that an alternative offensively has to exist and we have that. Mix it up, go inside out for ten minutes and then go guard setups for jumpers off screens, something like that, but the two talented, efficient bigs have to be used properly and that didn't happen in this game and the team lost in such an important time of the season.

Exactly, migya. That point you made about Curry and Thompson having plays run for them "half the time," that's all I really want.

Blackfoot wants Curry to get the most shots, followed by Lee. I'd rather they took an equal numbers of attempts. I don't want Curry getting 5 or 6 more attempts every night than Lee. In the beginning of the season (when this team garnered it's best record), both men were shooting 16 attempts per night. Recently, Lee has begun to take 13 shots and Curry has been getting closer to 20. That is a DIRECT correlation; the shots that Lee doesn't get almost always go back to Curry.

I am not comfortable, most nights, relying on an outside shooter to be our main offensive cog. Yes, Lee will have off-nights as well. But the fact that he scores so much closer to the basket means that his off-nights are much rarer. I know you don't use field goal percentage, but I do. And the fact is, Stephen Curry has left a game shooting below 30% four times in the past month. David Lee has shot below 30% twice ALL SEASON. Curry - to reiterate - has done it 9 times this year.

No matter how you slice it, you simply cannot win with your main shot-taker being content to crossover a couple times behind a screen and launch a 28-foot jumper. Yes, he makes more of those than anyone I've ever seen. But that doesn't make it a good shot!

When Lee and Curry take a similar number of attempts, the team is in a greater state of harmony than when Curry shoots 8 more times than Lee. Bottom line.

If Curry and Thompson have off shooting nights, like against the Kings, they'll lose to anybody in the league as they just proved. Klay's value is shooting the 3 which is the same role that players like Kyle Korver has on his team. 43% of this backcourt's shot attempts are 3 pointers and thats not going to cut it. This team needs a guy that can slash to change it up and keep defenses honest.

BayAreaHoopz wrote:If Curry and Thompson have off shooting nights, like against the Kings, they'll lose to anybody in the league as they just proved.

Unless they defer to their bigs, you are spot-on.

With no slasher in sight this year, we must all hope that Curry and Thompson learn how to contribute when their jumpers are malfunctioning. Curry, to his credit, seems to gather a surplus to dimes. Thompson... Is harder for me to justify because I don't buy into him as a defensive stopper.

I think the team does great with what we have, lack of great slasher or not. I think Curry and Klay get to the basket enough times to have to guard them for it. It's using the bigs with their passing skills especially that will open up scores off cuts to the basket. I think Barnes will start using his athleticism and drive a little next season. The pieces are here.

He's been really shitty offensively this year, but that's pretty much okay because he plays elite defense and should be on the 2nd all nba defensive team. Offensively Klay is better, but Iggy is better in everything else.

Fair enough, though, I don't see it that way. The only things in which Klay is better are 3pt % and FT %, and that's big difference mostly because Iggy has regressed a bit in those two categories. Other than that (on offense) Andre is better offensive rebounder (and overall especially) and is far, far better passer than Klay. He is just not taking as many shots, but he is creating for others, and he shots better percentage than Klay when it comes to FGs.

When you add defense to that, there is no doubt in my mind that if there is a chance to grab Iggy, and you need to send Klay in return, you do it...no question asked.

Guybrush wrote:Fair enough, though, I don't see it that way. The only things in which Klay is better are 3pt % and FT %, and that's big difference mostly because Iggy has regressed a bit in those two categories. Other than that (on offense) Andre is better offensive rebounder (and overall especially) and is far, far better passer than Klay. He is just not taking as many shots, but he is creating for others, and he shots better percentage than Klay when it comes to FGs.

When you add defense to that, there is no doubt in my mind that if there is a chance to grab Iggy, and you need to send Klay in return, you do it...no question asked.

It's pretty big to have a lower three point field goal percentage and free throw percentage. He was much better offensively last year, not sure why the drop off. Hopefully it goes back up because I love Iggy.

I don't have any numbers to show, but I think Iguodala does everything well and the only thing is which of the two would fit better on the team as is right now. Klay fits right now with his outside shooting and underrated defense, but Iguodala's defense and passing/playmaking would likely make others around him even better, including Curry, whose having such a great season. Klay's youth is what gives him a huge plus of the two right now, as well as salary.